I agree with you. Eg, as mentioned in another thread, I'm happy to pay £7 for Anne McCaffrey's eBooks. If anyone doesn't think they're worth that, nobody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to buy them. If Amazon subsequently becomes free to discount this book and it falls to, let's say, £5, that's great for future buyers, but I made the free choice to buy the book for £7; I don't think I'm entitled to get £2 refunded merely because the price falls in the future.

Agreed. In most cases, I'm not willing to pay the same price for an ebook as the cover price on the physical book, especially when I can often find the physical book discounted... so I don't buy them. When I'm able to shop around and get what I consider to be a fair price or a bargain, I'll purchase them then.

Agreed. In most cases, I'm not willing to pay the same price for an ebook as the cover price on the physical book, especially when I can often find the physical book discounted... so I don't buy them. When I'm able to shop around and get what I consider to be a fair price or a bargain, I'll purchase them then.

This is what normally happens, but the collusion made it so there would be the same price everywhere, no discounts possible.

The argument is that you would have paid less for those books without the illegal activities and should get some restitution from the companies because their illegal actions caused you harm. In this case, people paid more for books then they should have because of the collusion.

Right, I understand the issue and I'm saying that I've mostly refused to buy books from those publishers because I was unable to find competitive prices on them.

So did I.
I expected the scam to end up in court eventually and I simply boycotted *everything* from the price fixers. I didn't encourage the scam and so I don't need restitution.
Nonetheless, these kinds of conspiracies usually involve massive fines and/or consumer rebates of some kind. Which is why Apple and Co are trying to sucker the Brusselcrats into a cheap settlement before more evidence is released in the US.
Again, given the different political and cultural outlook on the other side of the pond, the odds look good that they'll get away without fines, restitution, or oversight. And at least 50-50 that they get away with the mandatory limits on discounting, aka Price-fix lite.

I stopped expecting any worthwhile participation in these kinds of class action lawsuits after the big AT&T breakup in the US. They said that AT&T had bilked customers for years and years, and we ended up receiving 3 $5 phone cards that could only be used at AT&T pay phones. I never had the chance to use any of them before they expired.

The only people who benefit from the proceeds of class action lawsuits are the lawyers. Consumers only benefit if the decision includes some kind of action or limits actions (like this one) of the participants long-term.

And I'll be honest, I think some of them are just stupid. There was a huge one that I got mailings on for the longest time about "flash media" drives. It stated that their labeling was deception (e.g., a 16 MB flash drive doesn't really have 16 MB space on it). I agree that the labeling is ... stupid. But it's the same labeling used for hard drives. So anyone even somewhat technologically inclined already understood how the devices were labeled and expected what they got.

The only people who benefit from the proceeds of class action lawsuits are the lawyers. Consumers only benefit if the decision includes some kind of action or limits actions (like this one) of the participants long-term.

Too true. A perfect example of that is an occupational tax that was charged by the county I worked in at my last job. The county was charging a 1% income tax, but because certain occupations were exempt, it was declared illegal and the whole thing wound up in court in a class action suit. When it was finally settled, I got a check... it was itemized... something like $200 I'd paid in over a certain period in question, $130 of it was declared part of the settlement, $70 something went for legal fees, and I wound up getting about $60 back... I was just like "whatever... it's $60 I didn't have before," but there's still a part of me that was irked that I about half the settlement went for legal fees...

Too true. A perfect example of that is an occupational tax that was charged by the county I worked in at my last job. The county was charging a 1% income tax, but because certain occupations were exempt, it was declared illegal and the whole thing wound up in court in a class action suit. When it was finally settled, I got a check... it was itemized... something like $200 I'd paid in over a certain period in question, $130 of it was declared part of the settlement, $70 something went for legal fees, and I wound up getting about $60 back... I was just like "whatever... it's $60 I didn't have before," but there's still a part of me that was irked that I about half the settlement went for legal fees...

The state of Georgia used to not tax state retiree's income tax on their retirement income. They did tax US Government retirees. The state managed to work a deal to keep from having to refund US Retirees for taxes paid by taxing state retirees. This still angers me.